106 replies to this topic

[SecretAgentFan]

No, I think they mean a completed draft. But it's okay, shooting won't even begin until a year from now. TND's final script was still having problems even then.

Afgreed. The first draft is the most important - if they have that then they're in good shape.

I love that word. May I steal it? Thanks! I afgreed that the first draft is extremely important, if not the most important. Stories abound of scripts that have gone through dozens of drafts. One Oscar nominee claimed to have done half a hundred or more drafts. They'll be in good shape if, if, and only if they get the first draft done in another couple of months, tops. It really needs to be done by July to allow for a couple of months's revising, inputting Craig's and the director's suggestions.

Final point: they don't start shooting a year from now. From all I've read, they start in January--and three months is a whole world of difference. They've already had all the time in the world. This dilly-dallying and mucking about is simply inexcusable. These script writers, presumably, are making millions. Let 'em earn their money now and get the damned thing down on paper.

Oh, my - here we go again over those "millionaire script writers". First of all - they don

[00Twelve]

[quote name='SecretAgentFan' post='717119' date='23 March 2007 - 12:31'][quote name='dodge' post='717033' date='23 March 2007 - 15:31'][quote name='plankattack' post='717029' date='23 March 2007 - 14:18'][quote name='00Twelve' post='717028' date='23 March 2007 - 09:15']No, I think they mean a completed draft. But it's okay, shooting won't even begin until a year from now. TND's final script was still having problems even then.[/quote]
Afgreed. The first draft is the most important - if they have that then they're in good shape.
[/quote]

I love that word. May I steal it? Thanks! I afgreed that the first draft is extremely important, if not the most important. Stories abound of scripts that have gone through dozens of drafts. One Oscar nominee claimed to have done half a hundred or more drafts. They'll be in good shape if, if, and only if they get the first draft done in another couple of months, tops. It really needs to be done by July to allow for a couple of months's revising, inputting Craig's and the director's suggestions.

Final point: they don't start shooting a year from now. From all I've read, they start in January--and three months is a whole world of difference. They've already had all the time in the world. This dilly-dallying and mucking about is simply inexcusable. These script writers, presumably, are making millions. Let 'em earn their money now and get the damned thing down on paper.
[/quote]


Oh, my - here we go again over those "millionaire script writers". First of all - they don

[Qwerty]

The key worry of the story is: no completed script so far...and no word on when it will be finished. There's still time but--really--they ought to know by now. The script ain't the icing the cake, it's the bloomin' cake mix.

Is this starting to feel like 1996-97 revisited?

Not in my opinion. We know very, very little about the Bond 22 script at the moment, but Tomorrow Never Dies seemed to have nonstop problems: http://commanderbond.net/article/2866

[Loomis]

I'm not entirely convinced Indie 4 will outgross it. It's been a while.

It had been a while for EPISODE I, II, and III too, and those films ate up money. It's an "event film" and those always rake in the cash. It doesn't even have to be good.

Just like people will show up for something with the Star Wars label, they'll show up for Indiana Jones. Even the skeptics. It's inevitable. Hell, I know I'll be there in a seat even if the movie is entirely panned and everyone I know tells me it was lame. And I don't even think the film is a good idea, and I think it has a fairly good chance of sucking.

I really doubt it'll suck. If nothing else, ask yourself this: what was the last Spielberg that sucked? Truly sucked? I think you'd have to go all the way back to HOOK. And the man's been on pretty darn good (and prolific) form over the past few years.

I think INDY 4 will end up like something like EYES WIDE SHUT, i.e. neither a total masterpiece nor an unmitigated disaster, but a distinctive yet fairly minor work by one of the great master directors, with some amazing moments. I seriously doubt that Spielberg would be making it unless he had some really good ideas. It's not as though he needs the money.

Anyway, INDY 4 will do well over $200 million at the US box office, at the very, very least. And, no, I'm not engaging in any betting on this, before anyone invites me to. Bad reviews will bounce right off it, a la THE DA VINCI CODE. In any case, didn't even the STAR WARS prequels all get glowing reviews on initial release? REVENGE OF THE SITH got across-the-board raves, as I recall (or near enough). Indy won't get many negative reviews.

[HildebrandRarity]

I guess so. I'm just not sure it has the same Brand recognition level as Star Wars anymore, but I could be wrong.

I'd say it's pretty close to STAR WARS. Not quite there (and it's not as much of a little kid event as STAR WARS is), but it's darn close. There's a lot of love for Indiana Jones out there, even among today's youth.

Not even close...No kid is interested in a 60 year old grandpa playing cowboys and indians.

Star Wars introduced young/teenage/youthful adult characters.

Indy 4 has grandpa Solo.

It'll be squashed by James Bond worldwide. You heard it here folks.

[Santa]

Oh God. More willy waving.

[Harmsway]

I really doubt it'll suck. If nothing else, ask yourself this: what was the last Spielberg that sucked? Truly sucked? I think you'd have to go all the way back to HOOK. And the man's been on pretty darn good (and prolific) form over the past few years.

Well, I'd point to the absolutely awful THE TERMINAL and the less-than-stellar A.I. (though it was an interesting failure).

I seriously doubt that Spielberg would be making it unless he had some really good ideas. It's not as though he needs the money.

Let's hope your right.

Anyway, INDY 4 will do well over $200 million at the US box office, at the very, very least. And, no, I'm not engaging in any betting on this, before anyone invites me to. Bad reviews will bounce right off it, a la THE DA VINCI CODE.

Agreed. Indiana Jones is going to be hot stuff, and it'll have everyone and their mothers seeing it.

In any case, didn't even the STAR WARS prequels all get glowing reviews on initial release? REVENGE OF THE SITH got across-the-board raves, as I recall (or near enough). Indy won't get many negative reviews.

Not true. The first two prequels met with mixed reactions (REVENGE OF THE SITH was the only one to get a positive critical response).

[Loomis]

Well, I'd point to the absolutely awful THE TERMINAL and the less-than-stellar A.I. (though it was an interesting failure).

Eh? Don't you mean the well-made and thoroughly entertaining THE TERMINAL and the extraordinarily imaginative and interesting (albeit flawed) AI? (I consider MINORITY REPORT to be Spielberg's worst film of recent years, by quite some distance.)

Not true. The first two prequels met with mixed reactions (REVENGE OF THE SITH was the only one to get a positive critical response).

Well, okay, the reviews may have been mixed, but there were also plenty of raves. THE PHANTOM MENACE was greeted as a masterpiece on its arrival in Britain by plenty of reviewers, with Empire awarding it ***** out of *****. In the States, Harry Knowles went crazy for ATTACK OF THE CLONES on release, calling it his favourite of the whole series (actually, I'm with him). I think a lot of people (including the critics who wrote some of those reviews at the time) would like to pretend that the films were greeted with universal scorn when they first came out, but I don't think that that was the case, exactly.

The fanboys and internet community really led the way in terms of lasting critical reaction to the prequels, with professional reviewers, who to start with were by and large either kind or fence-sitting, eventually playing catchup.

[DamnCoffee]

No finished script? so this makes the Roger Michell rumour blatently false.

[HildebrandRarity]

This sorta thing has been happening with the internet era starting with TWINE.

Ho hum.

[dinovelvet]

No finished script? so this makes the Roger Michell rumour blatently false.

I imagine they have a treatment to shop around to directors, which can be anywhere from 5 to 20 pages. Giancarlo Giannini dropped some plot details about his character in an interview a while ago, so we know they've got SOMETHING mapped out.

[Harmsway]

Well, I'd point to the absolutely awful THE TERMINAL and the less-than-stellar A.I. (though it was an interesting failure).

Eh? Don't you mean the well-made and thoroughly entertaining THE TERMINAL and the extraordinarily imaginative and interesting (albeit flawed) AI? (I consider MINORITY REPORT to be Spielberg's worst film of recent years, by quite some distance.)

You liked THE TERMINAL?

I thought you might like A.I. (you seemed like the kind of chap who would). I like a lot of things about A.I., but I would have ended it before that rather silly, feel-good end coda comes along.

[Loomis]

Well, I'd point to the absolutely awful THE TERMINAL and the less-than-stellar A.I. (though it was an interesting failure).

Eh? Don't you mean the well-made and thoroughly entertaining THE TERMINAL and the extraordinarily imaginative and interesting (albeit flawed) AI? (I consider MINORITY REPORT to be Spielberg's worst film of recent years, by quite some distance.)

You liked THE TERMINAL?

Well enough. I remember being entertained and having no real problem with the film (as ever with Spielberg, I also recall some nice visual touches, not excluding, of course, the lovely Mrs Douglas, then in her prime). If memory serves, I did find the ending a bit sickmakingly sentimental (surprise, surprise), but I think I found THE TERMINAL a fun timekiller. Y'know, "worthwhile rental" sorta thing. Probably be happy to watch it again in a few years, and equally okay with merely subsisting on my fond memories of it, partly false though they might be. Point is - and you know this as well as I do, Harms - not every flick needs to be CITIZEN freaky deaky KANE.

AI - yes, very flawed. Kind of like a weird and messy cross between E.T. and A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, although I guess you could hardly expect any mix of those two films to be anything other than weird and messy. Flawed, but very interesting; while unsatisfying (Spielberg and his problematic endings again; have you noticed, though, that, on the other side of the coin, his initial half hours are almost always absolutely brilliant?), it isn't exactly the kind of thing you're cursing yourself for having spent money on when you leave the cinema. But it seems we agree on AI.

[Harmsway]

Point is - and you know this as well as I do, Harms - not every flick needs to be CITIZEN freaky deaky KANE.

Fair enough. It was a bit too sicky-sweet for me the whole way through.

AI - yes, very flawed. Kind of like a weird and messy cross between E.T. and A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, although I guess you could hardly expect any mix of those two films to be anything other than weird and messy. Flawed, but very interesting; while unsatisfying (Spielberg and his problematic endings again; have you noticed, though, that, on the other side of the coin, his initial half hours are almost always absolutely brilliant?), it isn't exactly the kind of thing you're cursing yourself for having spent money on when you leave the cinema. But it seems we agree on AI.

Agreed with all of that.

[Stephenson]

I believe that Bond 22 will see an increase over CR in the US: DVDs are powerful things and the fact that it is currently the best selling disc in the US at the moment would seem to indicate that there a lot of people out there who either a) want to see the movie again (and again and again) or missed it in the theater, heard it was good and are seeing it now. No doubt CR was a success, but I can see the same thing that happened with the Bourne Identity and Austin Powers happening with Craig's Bond: more people discovered it on DVD, enjoyed it and have already decided to see the sequel at the cinema.

Having said that, I believe Bond 22 will have a bigger opening than CR, but will fade faster as soon as Potter appears. Hard to say how Indy will fare: I love the trilogy, and I 'm a little nervous about what a new film featuring a 60 plus year old hero from my youth will do to my memories. 30 to 35 year Ford/Indy was cool; Ford simply has not been cool for a few years now, and I'm not sure he has what it takes anymore to make a 60 year old Indy watchable.

Edited by Stephenson, 24 March 2007 - 12:14 AM.

[00Twelve]

I promise that I don't mean to appear as a hair-splitter, but actually, Ford was almost 40 when he shot Raiders. I don't think he'll look as bad as some think.

[HildebrandRarity]

I 'm a little nervous about what a new film featuring a 60 plus year old hero from my youth will do to my memories. 30 to 35 year Ford/Indy was cool; Ford simply has not been cool for a few years now, and I'm not sure he has what it takes anymore to make a 60 year old Indy watchable.

He does'nt. But then there's always CGI...Using CGI to remove the walking cane...Using CGI to superimpose grandpa Ford's face onto the lithe stunt double(s)...Using CGI to take 15 years off grand daddy's current facial features...Using CGI to create out-of-this-world landscapes and sets that the 8 year olds will love.

CGI always sells in the US...Look at all the the Americans are eating up in recent years.

Give me James Bond as a 40 year old who can bed a 20-something hottie and who can run like the wind in real life and I'll be a happy camper.

You guys can have your grandpa Solo and mega injections of CGI. I'll take my 007 with a vintage that is current.

Edited by HildebrandRarity, 24 March 2007 - 05:39 PM.

[Loomis]

Hard to say how Indy will fare: I love the trilogy, and I 'm a little nervous about what a new film featuring a 60 plus year old hero from my youth will do to my memories. 30 to 35 year Ford/Indy was cool; Ford simply has not been cool for a few years now, and I'm not sure he has what it takes anymore to make a 60 year old Indy watchable.

Well, a 60-year-old Rocky Balboa recently made a splendid comeback, and in 2008 we'll see a 62-year-old Rambo. We once had a 58-year-old Bond (Moore in AVTAK), so what's the problem with a 60+ Indy Jones?

[HildebrandRarity]

Hard to say how Indy will fare: I love the trilogy, and I 'm a little nervous about what a new film featuring a 60 plus year old hero from my youth will do to my memories. 30 to 35 year Ford/Indy was cool; Ford simply has not been cool for a few years now, and I'm not sure he has what it takes anymore to make a 60 year old Indy watchable.

Well, a 60-year-old Rocky Balboa recently made a splendid comeback, and in 2008 we'll see a 62-year-old Rambo. We once had a 58-year-old Bond (Moore in AVTAK), so what's the problem with a 60+ Indy Jones?

Rocky Balboa was a charcter-driven movie which did not require Stalone's abs and pecs and biceps being pumped-up by CGI.

Plus, it was not a blockbuster. Neither was A View To A Kill.

I saw it (RB) on opening weekend and it was a 'good' movie and nothing more. Casino Royale was infinitely superior (an understatement) and, at the time, Blood Diamond had more to offer than Rocky Balboa.

I think a 65 year old Indy is a complete joke of an idea.

[Loomis]

Hard to say how Indy will fare: I love the trilogy, and I 'm a little nervous about what a new film featuring a 60 plus year old hero from my youth will do to my memories. 30 to 35 year Ford/Indy was cool; Ford simply has not been cool for a few years now, and I'm not sure he has what it takes anymore to make a 60 year old Indy watchable.

Well, a 60-year-old Rocky Balboa recently made a splendid comeback, and in 2008 we'll see a 62-year-old Rambo. We once had a 58-year-old Bond (Moore in AVTAK), so what's the problem with a 60+ Indy Jones?

Rocky Balboa was a charcter-driven movie which did not require Stalone's abs and pecs and biceps being pumped-up by CGI.

Plus, it was not a blockbuster. Neither was A View To A Kill.

I saw it (RB) on opening weekend and it was a 'good' movie and nothing more. Casino Royale was infinitely superior (an understatement) and, at the time, Blood Diamond had more to offer than Rocky Balboa.

I think a 65 year old Indy is a complete joke of an idea.

You say that ROCKY BALBOA was not a blockbuster, but is it not possible that, costing far less than CASINO ROYALE, it was more profitable than Bond's latest outing? And if A VIEW TO A KILL was not a blockbuster, what makes CR one? Please explain.

I would agree that ROCKY BALBOA is not quite as good a film as CR (close, though), but given the state of the Rocky series and Stallone's career before it was made, compared to the good box office shape and critical reputation of Bond post-DIE ANOTHER DAY, it strikes me as a much greater achievement.

[dinovelvet]

Hard to say how Indy will fare: I love the trilogy, and I 'm a little nervous about what a new film featuring a 60 plus year old hero from my youth will do to my memories. 30 to 35 year Ford/Indy was cool; Ford simply has not been cool for a few years now, and I'm not sure he has what it takes anymore to make a 60 year old Indy watchable.

Well, a 60-year-old Rocky Balboa recently made a splendid comeback, and in 2008 we'll see a 62-year-old Rambo. We once had a 58-year-old Bond (Moore in AVTAK), so what's the problem with a 60+ Indy Jones?

Rocky Balboa was a charcter-driven movie which did not require Stalone's abs and pecs and biceps being pumped-up by CGI.

Plus, it was not a blockbuster. Neither was A View To A Kill.

I saw it (RB) on opening weekend and it was a 'good' movie and nothing more. Casino Royale was infinitely superior (an understatement) and, at the time, Blood Diamond had more to offer than Rocky Balboa.

I think a 65 year old Indy is a complete joke of an idea.

You say that ROCKY BALBOA was not a blockbuster, but is it not possible that, costing far less than CASINO ROYALE, it was more profitable than Bond's latest outing? And if A VIEW TO A KILL was not a blockbuster, what makes CR one? Please explain.

I would agree that ROCKY BALBOA is not quite as good a film as CR (close, though), but given the state of the Rocky series and Stallone's career before it was made, compared to the good box office shape and critical reputation of Bond post-DIE ANOTHER DAY, it strikes me as a much greater achievement.

Hmm yeah comparing Rocky Balboa to CR is getting into apples and oranges territory. Rocky Balboa cost $24 million to make, and raked in $147 mil worldwide. Not in CR's $590 million league obviously, but then again CR cost $150 to make. Both movies were successful, and good moneymakers for Sony. Coincidentally, both films were predicted by "movie buffs" on the internet as complete disasters in the making.

[Harmsway]

Rocky Balboa was a charcter-driven movie which did not require Stalone's abs and pecs and biceps being pumped-up by CGI.

Hasn't INDIANA JONES IV been labeled a "character piece" by the people producing it?

Plus, it was not a blockbuster.

True, but Rocky doesn't have the widespread appeal or following that Indiana Jones does. Kids today still grow up with those movies. Indiana Jones is certainly more of an icon than Rocky Balboa is.

Neither was A View To A Kill.

That has less to do with Bond's age, I think, and more to do with people getting burnt out on 007 in general.

I think a 65 year old Indy is a complete joke of an idea.

Well, I don't think Indiana Jones is going to be 65 years-old within the film. That's just Ford's age. I think Indy's going to be more late 50s.

[Loomis]

Coincidentally, both films were predicted by "movie buffs" on the internet as complete disasters in the making.

I know a lot of people predicted disaster for CR, but they never did so convincingly. It was always a given that it would be a smash - maybe not that it would be quite such a massive hit as it turned out to be, but it was always certain that it would do spectacular business.

By contrast, ROCKY BALBOA was always a much, much dodgier commercial prospect (if anyone thinks sequels to successful films can't lose, I refer you to BASIC INSTINCT 2's miserable $5 million US gross, and ROCKY BALBOA wasn't even following up a hit, with ROCKY V bombing a whopping 16 years earlier), and it was a real battle for Stallone to even get it greenlit. For years, he was apparently laughed out of every Hollywood executive's office he went to with the proposal of a sixth Rocky. Story goes that, just a few years ago, MGM flatly refused him even a paltry $10 million budget for the film.

No one apart from a handful of diehard Stallone fans ever believed that ROCKY BALBOA had a snowball's chance in hell of being good. There was no Daniel Craig or Paul Haggis onboard. I mean, it was ROCKY VI, for crying out loud - a joke in the AIRPLANE! franchise as far back as 1982! (With a poster in the background of one scene in AIRPLANE II showing a wizened old man in boxing gloves posing above the title ROCKY XXXVIII or something.) Stallone has said that his own wife begged him not to make the film, saying that he'd make such a fool of himself he'd never live it down.

The following hit the internet in 2003, and it summed up every sane person's reaction to the idea of a new Rocky film with a 60-year-old Stallone. (If I were Sly, I'd have included it among the special features of the ROCKY BALBOA DVD.)

http://www.spoil-spo...com/RockyVI.htm

Yet ROCKY BALBOA was not only not an embarrassment - it was also a hit, and, incredibly, an excellent film, widely considered the best of the series after the original. Which is why I consider it an even greater achievement than CR.

[Gobi-1]

Bond, Star Wars and Indiana Jones are the Holy Trinity of film franchises. Indy 4 is going to be huge and Harrison is going to be great because...

http://img170.images...ghposterzl4.jpg

[Qwerty]

Ah ha!

That's great.

[Mike00spy]

I find it ironic that you can complain about age in Indy 4. Ford may be 60, but the movie doesn't ignore that fact and it will be set somewhere in the character's 50s.

However, James Bond has been played by people in their 50s and tried to hide the fact. That makes a big difference.

[Skudor]

Safe to say that the following, at least, will outgross BOND 22 at the Stateside box office in 2008:

THE DARK KNIGHT (formerly known as BATMAN BEGINS 2)
HARRY POTTER
INDIANA JONES 4

And the following will probably outgross it, too:

ANGELS AND DEMONS
MADAGASCAR 2

BOND 22 will be very lucky indeed to make the 2008 US top 10.

To turn it around, I would say that if Bond outgrosses any one or more of the first three on the list it will be considered a massive success.

It would probably be fairest to compare it to Casino Royale than to anything else.

[Harmsway]

I find it ironic that you can complain about age in Indy 4. Ford may be 60, but the movie doesn't ignore that fact and it will be set somewhere in the character's 50s.

However, James Bond has been played by people in their 50s and tried to hide the fact. That makes a big difference.

Quite right. It's one thing to make a film about an older James Bond/older Indiana Jones, but it's entirely another to convince us that a 50-year-old is in their prime (I'm looking at you OCTOPUSSY and A VIEW TO A KILL).

[Royal Dalton]

http://img170.images...ghposterzl4.jpg

He looks like he should be holding a walking stick in his right hand.

[Harmsway]

http://img170.images...ghposterzl4.jpg

He looks like he should be holding a walking stick in his right hand.

Yeah, as much as the tagline is great, the look inspires no confidence.